Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 25, 2010 11:55am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: overated rocks

Nicely put, groover.

I am struck by how well folks recall so many of their shows (unlike me, assume some took notes on set lists? Or, listened to them enough here or elsewhere to get the songs "down").

I only recall a few of the songs from my top shows (like those of 75 I often mention), but I haven't listened to them for yrs and yrs (well, I have sampled 6-17 & 9-28 from 75, but not the entire shows). I did ALWAYS recall the great CFing & Peg-O from the first, and the Truc/NFA/OMSN from the latter, but that was about it...

I am sorry to say (sad, eh Grendel?) I can't recall the Oct 78 shows or Jul Orph 76 shows at all, except for the unrecognizable StSt at the latter, and the INAM (very energetic! Crowd pleaser!) at the former...

Again, this wasn't because I wasn't happy with them, I just didn't do any real "analysis" (seems so contrary to what I spend ALL my time doing now!) as to whether they were good, bad, or great...I always left feeling they'd been what I expected even if I'd taken someone that hadn't gotten it, and whenever I happened upon tapes later, they only confirmed that feeling, BUT I put no real thought into it...

It was only when I arrived here and really listened to pre 72 that I really thought "Whoa! I never heard this kind of energy! This kind of joy and excitment while playing!" and it sorta confirmed a nagging feeling I'd had all along.

So, I think my point is that I always suspected I wasn't seeing "GREAT!!!" shows, but I had no basis for that position at the time (so little early era stuff was available; my circle of HEADs just didn't have the tapes we hear about from old farts here like GoP and such) and I never would have been able to say "Aug, 79 with Brent just SUCKED in comparison to last Oct, 78, with Keith"...I would have characterized them as largely similar with only subtle reasons behind why I did think Jun and Sep 75 were somehow better by a bit than the others I saw.

There, and you thought science and God could bring out the nonsensical in me...

WTF, Dire!? Have you been off recovering with Brady or some such? Long time my friend, long time...

This post was modified by William Tell on 2010-01-25 19:55:42

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Cliff Hucker Date: Jan 25, 2010 12:59pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: overated rocks

My gripe is with all the five-star reviews. How the hell can shows from the mid 90's possibly warrant five stars?

Personally, I think a three-star show is still a good performance, with four stars being very good, and five exceptional. This is partly the reason I use a 100 point scale to rate shows, with a three-star show scoring in the low nineties.

If shows like 2/28/69, 4/28/71, 9/21/72, and 5/8/77 are bonafide five-star performances, how could shows like 6/14/84 or 9/7/85 deserve the same rating?

This post was modified by Cliff Hucker on 2010-01-25 20:59:42

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Jan 25, 2010 12:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: overated rocks

Agree on the reviews....so may 5-stars given for what objectively are often 3 or at best 4 star shows...maybe having the "half" option would help...we'd probably see a lot more 4 1/2 star ratings than 5-stars and same down the line...which would be more accurate.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Jan 25, 2010 12:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: overated rocks

Note that most of the recent Dead and Further shows also get 5 stars. I've long since given up on stars for any indication as to how a show sounds and/or was played. I rely on folks like Cliff, LIA, Dr. Flashback, and others for pointing me in the right direction. Since Tell only points me to two shows, I pretty much tune him out.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 25, 2010 1:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: overated rocks meets simple math...

Oh yeah, a couple of smart asses that can't count...there ain't no other way around it but for the fact that the number is perhaps twice, THRICE that measely amt. Why, even Rob can recount (get it?) that 6-14, 10-12 AND 12-29 get regular mention for 68, and if 4-5-69 doesn't have my mtn of the moon face all over it, it must be Arb's...throw in 6-7-70, 9-19-70, and of course...say it with me: "8-6 H2H!" (see? no yr necessary!) brings us to a whopping half dozen shows to keep track of...or may four score minus three score and smidge or two; how about 11 fumbles and INTs?

Manageable for my pea brain, but still a far cry from TWO you half wits...jeezzz, and hey, GROK buddy--I hope milk isn't coming out of your nose!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jan 25, 2010 1:12pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: overated rocks

Hey BD, what do you want to bet that there might be DSO shows that get higher ratings than the orignal Dead show?

Agreed, stars don't mean much to me either. Never an indicator for me. I've been around enough to know and be able to readily list the most legendary shows then after that I have my opinions on which years I think were their best. Even with that criteria I can get enjoyment from ALMOST any year if the conditions are right : )

" Since Tell only points me to two shows, I pretty much tune him out. "

AWESOME man. Too funny! 9-19-79 anyone?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: lobster12 Date: Jan 25, 2010 5:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: overated rocks

I think you have answered your own question by applying the wine rating system to shows. Only fair way to breakdown 5 star gigs.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: TOOTMO Date: Jan 25, 2010 2:17pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: overated rocks

What we need are reviews of the reviewer. Or, perhaps, someone could devise a test for the reviewers and those that pass could get some sort of seal of approval. Then, when you read a review and you see that a reviewer is either kosher or not kosher and you know how much weight to give their opinions.
But what questions should be asked?

TOOTMO

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Jan 25, 2010 2:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: overated rocks

I've never known the answer to the answer, man. (misplaced comma?).

Ask JOTS for his opinon of jboyguar's reviews.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: lobster12 Date: Jan 25, 2010 5:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: overated rocks

This just in...another 3 star review from J-boy. he's the judge equivalent to Wolfman jack on dance fever.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: TOOTMO Date: Jan 25, 2010 2:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: overated rocks

Kind of funny that you should bring up the j-word, in light of this confession: http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=243897

Now what do you have to say for yourself, BD?
I'm sure you'll say you were just kiddin' but isn't the root of all humour sprouted in a peatpot of truth?


Go to hell, Carolina, go to hell.

TOOTMO

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Jan 25, 2010 3:34pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: overated rocks

Damn, busted! (or was I?)

But I'll make sure my new reviews of DSO are less glowing.

GTH, UNC, GTH ... INDEED! (Looks like they are headed there this year...)